Women like sexual coercion

Their resistance is merely a shit test, to separate the strong from the weak.

What they hate, hate, hate hate hate, hate with a hatred hotter than a thousand suns, is that some guy whom they had sex with turns out to be substantially less alpha than they thought.

You doubt me? Reflect on the current Hollywood drama. Everyone has always known about the casting couch but in actual practice women acted as if being sexually exploited by rich, famous, and powerful men was a fringe benefit, rather than an occupational hazard – until the advance of feminism turned previously arrogant and entitled Hollywood moguls into weak and timid betas using wealth, fame and power as a weak crutch.

In June, a 12-year-old girl in the small town of Stenungsund reported that she had been dragged into a public restroom and raped by an older boy. Six weeks later the girl had still not been questioned by the police. Even though she believed she had identified the perpetrator, the police had yet to pay him a visit.

“We have so many similar cases,” a spokeswoman of the local police told the Swedish public television channel SVT on September 12, “and there are so few of us, that we simply don’t have the time.” She continued: “We have rape victims three years old,” and even their cases await investigation.

Needless to say, feminists, and indeed women generally, are totally untroubled by this, just as they untroubled by Rotherham.

What happened is that Swedes escalated the definition of rape, so that looking at a woman sideways was rape.

Then they de-escalated the punishment for rape, so that it was similar to letting your dog poop on the pavement.

And then they imported a million or so brown Mohammedans.

And when anyone noticed that a million old style knife to the throat rapes of white women by brown Mohammedans were happening, old fashioned actual rape type rapes, the criminal noticer got severely punished, hate speech being treated far more severely than mere rape. And if police attempted to arrest the brown guy with the knife: “Racism! Islamophobia! Police Brutality” Cars would be set on fire, and police would ticket the scorched ruins of the car for being illegally parked.

So police decided it was a lot more urgent to ticket people walking their dogs, and rapes by brown men got left on the back burner.

Swedish males are a little bit unhappy about this but, after all “We are not your women”, so they are not all that disturbed.

And what is the reaction of Swedish women? It is “bring in more refugees! We are not your women!”

Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males. I say again: Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males.

There is no college rape crisis, because if there were, female enrollment would be much higher.

Also, there is no college rape crisis, because the Obama Department of education subjected colleges to extreme and extraordinary pressure to identify and punish heterosexual white male college student rapists, and the colleges subjected coeds to extreme and extraordinary pressure to say that they had been raped, and despite all this storm and drama, the poster boy white male college frat rapist that they managed to turn up was glass rapist Haven Monahan, indicating that the number of affluent white frat boy rapists, the rapists that Obama was twisting the arms of university admins to find, is indistinguishable from zero, that every single rape accusation made against such men is false, for if one of the accusations was plausibly true, he would be the poster boy instead of Haven Monahan. Such a ridiculously low rate of rape indicates that our college boys are disturbingly emasculated, hence the female rage directed against them, and conspicuously not directed at groups that have a very high rate of actual no kidding rape type rape.

If a high status fraternity really could get away with glass raping coeds, the way that Swedish and English Muslims get away with raping very young girls, there would be a horde of coeds hanging around the frat house carrying glasses.

The extraordinary and vicious rage and hatred directed at high status white male heterosexual frats is because they do not dare rape, dare not sexually coerce women, having too much to lose, and thus feel like fake alphas. And nothing enrages a woman worse than having sex with a seeming alpha and finding he is not actually all that alpha. That is a thousand times worse than being raped, and they are getting it all the time from frat boys.

If high status frats really could rape girls and get away with it thanks to their immense social status, girls would be as relaxed about it as they used to be about the Hollywood casting couch, and even more relaxed than they are about Sweden and English Mohammedan rapes.

And, also, the success of the eighteenth century Australian authorities in turning sluts into respectable wives for respectable men. Cartoonishly extreme coercion, which moderns, and even Victorians, would regard as enslavement and rape, was on the books, but very seldom need to be actually applied. Faced with a firm hand, women internalized the values commanded, and hastily volunteered for respectable marriage. Often very hastily.

Today’s coercion turns virgins into whores. Early Australian coercion turned whores into wives. But both ways, in both directions, it is clear that women rather like sexual coercion. Harvey Weinstein’s problem was that despite being rich, famous, and powerful, he so internalized leftist dogma that he acted beta. He swallowed the blue pill. If he had acted arrogant and entitled, he would have been fine. He should have hit those whores with a stick.

We ban rape because we are not allowed to ban what we really want to ban – other men having sex with our women.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 08:28 and is filed under culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Treat her mean to keep her keen. Women are never more pleasant and attentive then after you plausibly threaten someone, especially when that someone is her. My character of an unstable, violent, sarcastic asshole is always popular with the girls at my job. All of the men respect me, because they are at or near my level of ability to inflict real harm, and the women are always friendly, even when they have to fix a mistake I make.

All because violent physical coersion is typically a prelude to sexual coersion, and they think I am alpha as a result. It works, as long as I do not have to rape anyone, and as long as I can convince everyone that I am willing and able to fight, which I am.

“Women are never more pleasant and attentive then after you plausibly threaten someone, especially when that someone is her.”

Exactly why this blog is comedic gold. The super majority of normal women do not enjoy being threatened by men; the super majority of normal men do not make threats to women.

“My character of an unstable, violent, sarcastic asshole is always popular with the girls at my job.”

Translation–I dare not act this way in reality, because I would be beaten to a bloody pulp by her alpha brothers. Rather, I claim to behave in this manner because I have to keep up with the prescribed narrative on this blog.

“All of the men respect me, because they are at or near my level of ability to inflict real harm, and the women are always friendly, even when they have to fix a mistake I make.”

The only way that you would be able to prove your assertion is to submit a YouTube video of yourself in your work environment conducting yourself exactly as how you prescribe and allow the drama to naturally unfold. Five days, 8 hours a day of unedited footage. If the men and women in your workplace succumb to your “out of control asshole game”, then the viewing audience is more likely to believe you.

Otherwise, what you are stating here is fantasy. Perhaps Tatoo can help you out…

“All because violent physical coersion is typically a prelude to sexual coersion, and they think I am alpha as a result.”

No, they believe you are a sociopath. Again, prove it through an actual video.

You argue that what the shadowed knight says must be false, because if he were to produce evidence of the truth of what he says, he would be punished.

But surely, that he would be punished is compelling evidence for the truth of his claims. If his approach was a bad way to get laid, there would be no need for the state to suppress the evidence.

It is the inverse of the poster girl principle. If the poster girl is a crap example of what she is supposed to demonstrate, then what she is supposed to demonstrate is false. Thus Marie Curie proves that women cannot be great scientists, because if women could be great scientists, they would have better poster girls.

And if you have to suppress your opponent’s poster boys, then what they demonstrate is indeed the truth.

The truth is in front of your face: Bad boys get laid. Being bad gets you laid more than being young and handsome, more than being rich. And you are telling us it cannot be true, because the Cathedral will punish anyone who demonstrates it is true.

The echo is loud and clear from your one-room funhouse. The acoustics play tricks on you, as what you believe to be other voices are in reality just your own.

“You argue that what the shadowed knight says must be false, because if he were to produce evidence of the truth of what he says, he would be punished.”

There is no threat of punishment, for SK alleges he is a boss around his workplace. His male and female colleagues adore him. Try harder.

“But surely, that he would be punished is compelling evidence for the truth of his claims.”

No, the truth of his claims comes from actual documentation, not another one of your hair-brained schemes of reason.

“Thus Marie Curie proves that women cannot be great scientists, because if women could be great scientists, they would have better poster girls.”

Only in the obese mind of Jim does he equate poster girls with great scientists. Two Nobel prizes and several discoveries attributed to her clearly meets the metrics attributed to greatness.

“The truth is in front of your face: Bad boys get laid.”

SOME bad boys get laid. And the Shadowed Knight is no bad boy, just someone on a blog who makes the claim. Without hardcore evidence.

Shadow…

“What normal women do is read Fifty Shades of Grey, date assholes, and invite savage rapists into their countries.”

Definitional error on your part. Women who are normal read fiction, date whom they desire, and may or may not oppose immigrants from entering their shores.

“By pretending to be a blend of controlling, asshole, violent, and unpredictable, I appeal to those feminine instincts and thus I have power in a female led economy.”

Exactly, you are pretending that you act in a certain way at work, when in reality you are simply a schlub. Clearly you have had several tours of duty at the Neighborhood of Make Believe.

“Not only am I significantly more muscled than most men I meet, I am an extreme outlier for my willingness to use violence if it comes down to it. There is a part of me that very much enjoys hurting people, and channeling that does wonders for my social life.”

Dude, Fifty Shades of Gray literally sold a hundred million copies worldwide. It was the best-selling book of all time. That’s the number of sales, mind you, not the number of reads. Harry fucking Potter only managed 500 million, and that was an epic tale comprising 7 books and as many movies spread over two decades, not a one-and-done. 500 / 7, by the way, in case you were wondering, is 71.

You are a more verbose and articulate version of the atmosphere trolls of yore. Nothing more. I have seen a thousand of you come, then go. They could not stop us, but you, of course, are special, and will show us the error of our ways. Good luck with that.

Only in the obese mind of Jim does he equate poster girls with great scientists. Two Nobel prizes and several discoveries attributed to her clearly meets the metrics attributed to greatness.

That Marie Curie got not one, but two, Nobel prizes, for work that she clearly did not do, and which was clearly inferior to and less important than the very similar but far more important discovery of radon, which discovery got zero Nobel prizes, meets the attribute of a regime so frantically desperate for poster girls that they have to manufacture phonies.

Before the discovery of radium was attributed to her, we have a bunch of photos titled as depicting the actual discoverers of radium, and she is a bottle washer in the background.

The actual discoverers of radium were largely ignored, until history got revised in Marie Curie’s favor, , whereupon it suddenly became a supposedly hugely important discovery.

Somewhere there is a photo of the people who discovered radium, which shows her as the third and most junior person in the team, but I cannot find it easily.

And clearly, the only reason that she was in the team at all was that she was the wife of a great scientist.

Pierre Curie did lots of important stuff apart from discovering radium before he got married, but anything Marie Curie accomplished, she accomplished under his supervision and while washing his bottles. I am sure she was a great and valuable help to him, but it never seems to have occurred to anyone that she was the discoverer of radium until quite some time after it had been discovered. She never did anything significant before becoming his wife, and never did anything significant after he died.

My wife was a pretty good programmer, for a woman, and was a considerable help to me, and so is one of my recent girlfriends, who has done some quite important stuff while thousands of miles away from me, and there is no doubt that Marie Curie was a considerable help to Pierre Curie, and did some quite important stuff, but nonetheless, all the best engineers are male, and there can be no doubt that Pierre Curie, not Marie Curie, discovered radium.

“André-Louis Debierne […] was a close friend of Pierre and Marie Curie and was associated with their work. In 1899, he discovered the radioactive element actinium, as a result of continuing the work with pitchblende that the Curies had initiated.

After the death of Pierre Curie in 1906, Debierne helped Marie Curie carry on and worked with her in teaching and research.

In 1910, he and Marie Curie prepared radium in metallic form in visible amounts.”

> the scientist team of Pierre and Marie
Normal people: aww how romantic
> no, it was all Marie, Pierre stole the credit that’s why after she died he had no further accomplishments
Normal people: that’s ridiculous, but I’m not losing my job to gainsay it

Give a pre-1906 article, Corvinus, from the time Pierre was still alive. Preferably, predating the Nobel prize. Radium was discovered in 1898, RaCl separated in 1902. Surely there were papers in 1898-1902 that reported it. Your earliest article is from 1906 and there it’s “M. Curie, the discoverer (along with his talented wife) of radium.” In 1922, it’s already “Mme. Curie, the discoverer of radium.” Trend line: obvious.

Also, note how in Wikipedia “In 1910, Curie succeeded in isolating radium”, with Debierne getting for some reason zero mention. I wonder why that is.

“It is obvious that Marie Curie was absolutely and intricately and directly involved in a major discovery, with some of her research actually being original and individual.”

Hard to say. I’m not going full Jim, but there’s nothing obvious in your assertions.

Which is irrelevant, because the obvious trend I referred to was how she was viewed by the public.

Before the Nobel prize, nobody considered her even a co-discoverer.

“At first, the Committee intended to honour only Pierre and Becquerel, but one of the committee members and an advocate of women scientists, Swedish mathematician Magnus Goesta Mittag-Leffler, alerted Pierre to the situation, and after his complaint, Marie’s name was added to the nomination.[43]”

After Pierre Curie’s death, she got upgraded to discoverer.

“The [research] idea [writes Reid] was her own; no one helped her formulate it, and although she took it to her husband for his opinion she clearly established her ownership of it. She later recorded the fact twice in her biography of her husband to ensure there was no chance whatever of any ambiguity.”

Maybe she deserved that, maybe she didn’t. I can’t say based on the available information.

“Skłodowska studied during the day and tutored evenings, barely earning her keep. In 1893, she was awarded a degree in physics and began work in an industrial laboratory of Professor Gabriel Lippmann. Meanwhile, she continued studying at the University of Paris, and with the aid of a fellowship she was able to earn a second degree in 1894.[11][24][b]

Marie had begun her scientific career in Paris with an investigation of the magnetic properties of various steels, commissioned by the Society for the Encouragement of National Industry (Société d’encouragement pour l’industrie nationale [1]).[24] That same year Pierre Curie entered her life…”

and

“Pierre was increasingly intrigued by her work. By mid-1898 he was so invested in it that he decided to drop his work on crystals and to join her.[22][29]”

but the cited sources aren’t very convincing, and I can’t be bothered to investigate. Could be legit, could be a post hoc fairy tale.

“Marie had begun her scientific career in Paris with an investigation of the magnetic properties of various steels,”

Peirre Curie is famous for his work on the magnetic properties of steel. It is called the Curie effect, for Pierre Curie, not Marie Curie.

Also the Curie law.

Being interested in “the magnetic properties of various steels” would in practice at the time necessarily mean you were interested in Pierre Curie, even if that interest was purely intellectual, rather than erotic, since he was the man who had recently made the field well known by making big discoveries in that field. So there is definitely something smelly about this story.

The supposed scientific career of Marie Curie consists entirely of topics that reflect an interest in Pierre Curie. Funny thing that.

I repeat. My women have been a considerable help to me in intellectually demanding fields. But they were interested in fucking me before they were interested in helping me, and they were helping me, I was not helping them.

Odd that there is no evidence for Marie Curie showing any interest in science except in rewrites of history manufactured after she got credited with Radium – which rewrites flagrantly contradict reports written earlier.

There is, however, plenty of evidence for her taking an interest in a great and famous scientist.

Let me tell you what women in science are like. A woman in science was giving a presentation about what she had been working on with two male collaborators, and her body language was disappointed that people weren’t looking at her the same way now that she was visibly pregnant. I don’t know why it would be controversial here that women have different motivations from men, but maybe you still believe in rational souls.

If he posts it, he either is disproven, or, doxxed and shamed for being an abuser of women.

So if Corvinus is right, Shadowedknight is shamed for being a liar and he wins

If Corvinus is wrong, he can punish Shadowedknight for breaking down his internal narrative..

Slippery.

I know in my own work-life, there is a woman who is highly interested in shit-testing. She always treated me with general contempt. She always used to ask me if the reason I don’t want to marry her is because shes fat, and once I loudly proclaimed this was the reason to the gasps of other employees.

What normal men do and what I do are two distinct categories. What normal women do is read Fifty Shades of Grey, date assholes, and invite savage rapists into their countries. By pretending to be a blend of controlling, asshole, violent, and unpredictable, I appeal to those feminine instincts and thus I have power in a female led economy.

Her brothers are in all likelihood significantly less alpha than I and less capable of beating me up than than the reverse. Not only am I significantly more muscled than most men I meet, I am an extreme outlier for my willingness to use violence if it comes down to it. There is a part of me that very much enjoys hurting people, and channeling that does wonders for my social life. They may not love me, but for someone with my social handicaps, fear is better than love, and if they hate me, let them hate, so long as they fear.

The “savage rapist invitations” are nominally the result of the votes of single childless women over the age of 30, not single fertile women in their twenties, who prefer the same hwyte alfalfa dudes as occupy the tip of the pyramid in every other society on this humble planet of earf.

They might prefer peak alpha white men, but how many of them are there to go around? Last time I checked, those women are still voting left, and still going out where there is a likelihood of them being raped. All Women Are Like That. Never forget that.

All hot nubile women, every single one on the planet, prefer tall rich handsome white bad boys, to which they, being hot and nubile, have, as though granted by God himself, access to a plentiful supply.

Then as they start getting a bit older and more haggard, the tall rich handsome white bad boys strangely and inexplicably start to fade from view, and so, amid some confusion, they drop the “tall”.

Then they drop the “rich”.

Then they drop the “handsome”.

Then they drop the “white”.

Of course, the smarter ones realize what’s happening, and start dropping other things before they have to drop the “white”. The old bloodline can bounce back from the other stuff, but it can’t bounce back from that. The smartest ones assess the situation and execute the optimal strategy, which is to jump straight to the end, drop the “bad boy”, and try to clean up on the “tall”, “rich”, “handsome”, and “white”.

that’s unironically what studies show. Studies also show you can propagandize and incentivize women to say and even sort of act like they don’t,, but studies (some of which I have conducted myself) show women at a visceral level never really agree with not wanting a rugged looking White man

(propagandize not so much by saying Whiteness and beauty are social construct, which is blatantly false, but by saying Chad is going to creep on you, is going to refuse to give you the hard dicking you deserve, and is going to assiduously use condoms and demand you abort and doesn’t want to father your kids, all of which they’ve sort of made true. And despite the White women needing to at least go on one date with a nigger or be called racist, the women still want White men, because everyone basically knows that White men are the definition of alpha, the most evolutionarily prepared to take a woman as their own and never let her go.

The ultimate female fantasy is to be raped and kept as a pet by the most powerful man in the world. Then she competes for his affection with his other sex pets and wins.

In the past, the patriarchy provided the sexy dominance that got women wet for their husbands. It was communalizng alpha. The beta husband belonged to a powerful clique that would ruin her if she slept around.

You guys are badly confused. You keep trying to redefine the word rape. It has nothing to do with status – neither alpha, beta, or gamma fucking rays, you fucking morons.

If a women consents to sex, implicitly or explicitly, it’s not rape. If she is fighting you off screaming NO then it’s rape – regardless of anyone’s status. This is so elementary I just… well, I don’t get it. Keep on wth your pro-rape pro-enslaved-women pro-dicking-10yr-olds (Jim’s specialty, and somehow I doubt limited to girls) – you are in a little fucked up echo chamber. You people need help.

That is a reasonable definition of rape, though you will find that in the vast majority of rape convictions, the girl did not in fact attempt to fight the guy off. So are you going to say that not only are the vast majority of rape accusations, false, but also the vast majority of rape convictions are false?

Thing is, revealed preference is that women do not mind rape so defined all that much.

On the one hand, an attempt to fight the supposed rapist off is not necessary for rape convictions, and is not in fact common in rape convictions. On the other hand, when a woman does attempt to fight you off, it does not necessarily imply that she always wants to win

“If a women consents to sex, implicitly or explicitly, it’s not rape. If she is fighting you off screaming NO then it’s rape – regardless of anyone’s status. This is so elementary I just… well, I don’t get it.”

Are you on the autism spectrum? Because if so I have horrible news for you- the definition that words have has very little to do with what they actually mean. Most of the meaning is tied up in connotations. So the word rape causes badfeels in people but this has nothing to do with what is written in the dictionary. Now, you may want to look for the actual meanings behind words. Plato also wanted to do that. It turns out most of human existence is manipulating goodfeels and badfeels. This is why it took us about 10,000 years to go from agriculture to medicine that worked reliably.

As for 10 year olds, that would make Jim a liberal in Afghanistan. There is no circumstances where Jim is a liberal so that is obviously false.

I’m more interested in the word “like” here — what’s the overall situation, in reality, that this word is used to indicate? Sometimes people say things such as, “On one level I like it, on another I don’t” or “Part of me likes it, part of me doesn’t.” So, suppose we can make some kind of sense of a woman saying, “Part of me likes being raped, part of me doesn’t.” Which part is which? (It isn’t just head vs. heart, presumably; it’s heart-parts contending.) How do we decide whether the statement that she, overall, likes being raped is true?

Female behavior in sexual matters is not well described by utility maximization. They react to stimuli, rather than optimizing long term utility. They want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want.

Male sexual behavior is pretty much utility maximizing – or, which comes to much the same thing, pussy maximizing. Female behavior not so much. What women “like” is not consistent with behavior, nor predictive of behavior.

When sexual desire gets going, the word “coercion” is not in fact easily applicable – does not map well onto their behavior. When sexual desire comes into play, it is not easy to say, not even meaningful to say, not intelligible to ask, whether a female has been coerced or not.

“She liked being raped” means that her resistance was a shit test, and she was glad of sex with a man who passed her shit test.

Ducks have complicated vaginas so they can choose whether to get knocked up when they get raped and complicated cocks to rape because they have an equilibrium involving rape, consensual one night stands, and modern until the kids fly off marriage. Cats have barbed dicks but female cats don’t have any countermeasures because they exclusively rape.

The scooper ridges on our pen0rs are supposedly for gang rape. Women get to choose at the cervix and vis orgasm. Which is one reason men love giving women orgasms.

As to the question at hand – do women like rape – the answer is unequivocally yes, from a man authorized to do so, whose children will be strong and well connected. Oh, you say, but Fifty Shades is consensual. They’re just ritualistically simulating him taking her.

In this age when words amd symbols so often mean the opposite of what they mean, sometimes it’s hard to appreciate that some symbols have an intrinsic meaning. When you grab your woman’s ass, it intrinscally means that you think you own her, and she loves it because she wants you to think you own her because alpha males take care of what they own. When a soyboy doesn’t grab her ass or put his hand on her throat during sex, it’s because he doesn’t want to be tied down to her beyond merely seeing the relationship as purely transactional, and nothing dries up a pussy faster than a weak man without even the intention of keeping the woman.

PUA is all about faking alpha status long enough to get your balls drained, then moving along. Women lack effective countermeasures to this because they’ve always relied on real alphas to weed out the fakes for them. So they see a poser not getting a beat-down and assume he’s the real deal.

This is the main reason why fathers used to choose the husbands of their daughters in the past, because men know how to distinguish between a genuinely high status man and one that is merely pretending.

The other thing is that people typically lived in close knit communities, where fathers knew each other and their respective families. So, marriage would not infrequently be either an agreement between the patriarchs to get their children into the contract, for procreation, or a young son attempting to make a deal, on his own, with the father of the bride. Obviously the deal implied brideprice. Brideprice can even work with near-complete strangers. Dowry only made sense in cases of communal trust and cohesion, and was a protection for the female. A lot of details can be glimpsed from JD Unwin’s work.

Overwhelming majority of societies was also patrilocal (i.e. the girl moves into the husband’s/husband’s clan locale). All matrilocal societies are primitive/low status (tend to be primitive horticultural, a la African horticultural belt) societies.

The only exception I found so far were the Kerala Nairs, who were matrilocal. They had a system somewhat reminiscent of Nazi lebensborn concept. Basically, the (mostly) Aryan (or Aryan-assimilated) warrior caste members impregnating local women, claiming paternity, but (presumably) not typically engaging in the effort to raise them. This was compelled by explicit prohibition for women to marry and procreate with lower castes, thus enabling Brahmin and Kshatriya to have concubinage without much responsibility, beyond claiming paternity and providing protection. The difference with lebensborn, obviously, is that the children born to Nair women in such a way were never up-casted, whereas in lebensborn they would be considered full-Nazi. Some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nambudiri

Anyway, I digressed: yes, pretty much, the whole PUA concept would not survive today’s synthetic reality, if we ever were forced to go back to/reinvent traditional ways.

PS Btw, I consider the whole idea of lebensborn to be ludicrous concept — at least in its implementation. If one pursues “racial purity,” taking slave girls, impregnating them, absolving the fathers of responsibility, and supporting these women with their children on *state resources* is a recipe for disaster. In general, one of the big mistakes of Nazi regime (assuming it had won the war) was relying on the State for regulating communal affairs and sponsorship a la socialism. It would collapse on itself eventually, in a similar way what we will be eventually facing in the West more generally.

You need to reward your own people for supporting each other, which means that those males who work or fight get pussy.

You need to prevent independent women from playing males off against each other, which means that males have to be given an absolute and exclusive property right in women, which they are not allowed to sell, rent, or abandon. Because if they are allowed to do that, their women will manipulate them into doing it. You need to forbid them from letting their girls loose to strengthen their hand against their conniving and manipulative women.

Which is going to look something like lebensborn, but has to be patrilocal, the woman has to follow her master, and the children their father. Matrilocality means you are letting the women go loose, which is going to bite you. If you enslave a hostile population matrilocality will result in your sons identifying with the ruled population, as the sons of the Mongols identified with the Han Chinese.

And I am pretty sure that the Chinese concubines of the Mongols got up to misconduct with Han Chinese males. You cannot let your men let their women do that, because their women will manipulate them into allowing it, and that wound up biting the Mongols.

Agree. Except that the woman does not need to literally follow her master. Once a slave woman marries the warrior, she can remain with his paternal kin, separated from the men and with the family’s women, preferably the warrior’s mother. This, obviously, implies strong communal bonds.

Sorry. You have to read old articles written by those who were actually there, because quite early in the nineteenth century history got a rewrite to say that women were naturally virtuous, and only engaged in sexual immorality because forced by evil men, and in consequence the quite drastic coercion that the authorities applied in the late eighteenth and very early nineteenth century (you know how young girls act when away from friends and family overseas; imagine the Taliban and Boko Haram had been given charge of security for spring break in Cancun) was totally unnecessary, and was forcing women into immorality, rather than forcing them into respectable marriage.

And I cannot remember those sources, and if I could remember them, you will find that they have now become inaccessible except to properly vetted researchers from respectable academic institutions. For some reason, it is undesirable for ordinary mortals to see the unfiltered versions.

On a related issue, could one of my readers get an interlibrary loan from the Library of Virginia:

The consents and bonds are the juicy part, since that is the parent or guardian contracting with the prospective son in law that he damn well will get married.

The bond is a promise to pay damages if the marriage is not carried out – so presumably the couple are having sex at the time of the bond, or immediately after. (Otherwise, there would be no need to pay damages) but I would like to see if I could get hints of how things actually worked: age of marriage, paternal control of courtship, etc.

Bonds go from 1660, When Charles the Second’s Anglicanism was imposed in England to 1860, when marriage as it has been understood for the past couple of thousand years was legally abolished in England, though marriage continued to be socially enforced all the way to the 1970s, though social support for marriage was eventually smashed by a campaign defining marriage as traditionally understood to be “domestic abuse”.

Charles the second’s Anglicanism was purportedly a restoration of pre puritan Anglicanism, but this was not altogether true. He substantially reasserted state power over church and marriage, which power had been allowed to slide after Henry the Eighth. So the ground level impact of bonds and consents, how it actually impacted lovers, is a good indication of the ground level impact of Charles the Second’s Anglicanism.

I have a very good idea how marriage and the family worked in regency period Australia, even though I cannot give you sources. In Australia, after an initial outbreak of Spring Break in Cancun on the shores of Port Jackson, the state proceeded to reverse this problem by applying alarmingly drastic coercion to turn sluts into wives, and was very successful in getting not merely outward compliance, but inwards internalization of respectable middle class marital values, with a large proportion of convict women getting married within days, sometimes within hours, of arrival, and remaining well behaved thereafter.

I am looking for sources on how marriage and the family worked in early eighteenth century Virginia. If there is stuff there that is indicative, please send me some scans.

>they have now become inaccessible except to properly vetted researchers from respectable academic institutions.

I am a uni postgrad in an Australian university and I have access to some library resources. I can try finding some of the stuff about historical Australia. What keywords and time ranges would be most fruitful?

Whores, wives, and “the female factory”. The period where they took effective and decisive action to turn whores into wives was from shortly after arrival, to some time in the 1810s.

“their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”. I don’t recall contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until twenty years into the nineteenth century, three decades after settlement began – which is to say I don’t recall contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until the violent coercion to impose monogamy was considerably reduced.

According to original sources, when they landed on the shores of Port Jackson, it was like spring break in Cancun (my description, not theirs). The authorities were horrified, and after a period of paralysis, confusion, and disorientation, eventually cracked down Taliban style.

Which account of events gets rewritten as women being forced into immorality by rape or poverty, but that is not in the original account. The original account has women having sexual fun, and obstinately and stubbornly resisting respectable marriage which would have fixed their economic condition, in favor of having sexual fun.

The word “whore” seems to have had different connotations in Port Jackson to what it means now. The stereotypical female convict, immortalized in a song of the time, rather than taking money for sex, stole from her employer to give to her badboy lover. They were “whores” because they would rather have sex with badboys, than a sexual relationship that guaranteed support for themselves and their children, whores because they gave money to their lovers, not because they took money from their lovers.

The word “whores” seems to have meant roughly what today is meant by “brave, powerful, strong, independent”. In other words, hot chick preparing to be a cat lady.

Do you have any more detail regarding this? What circumstances allowed for the Spring break atmosphere? Was there a lopsided ration of women to men or something? What measures did the authorities do specifically to halt the whoring?

Men outnumbered women seven to one. Women acted like it was spring break because women always act like that when far away from family and their normal social circle.

After ineffectually and unsuccessfully issuing stern prohibitions (imagine the Taliban at Cancun) the authorities proceeded with shotgun marriage and forced concubinage, and proceeded to enforce the husband’s authority by dire means. Thus monogamy was re-imposed on and against women. Faced with a threat of forced concubinage, most women volunteered for consensual marriage very quickly indeed.

Well, coercion works, no big surprise there. What is, however, interesting, is that the women internalized the values that that were coercively imposed upon them. Women riotously shit tested the authorities, found that the authorities were not kidding, happily surrendered to authority and to their new husbands.

Please by all means locate the source material. Because Jim has a history of making shit up as he goes along, particularly this nugget–“Sorry. You have to read old articles written by those who were actually there, because quite early in the nineteenth century history got a rewrite to say that women were naturally virtuous, and only engaged in sexual immorality because forced by evil men.”

“Whores, wives, and “the female factory”–yes, when you use those keywords at your university library, a magic portal will open, and all of the source material will appear.

If it does not appear, it is because access to dangerous knowledge has been restricted. This stuff used to be readily available.

If you doubt my summary of contemporary accounts, stuff written by those that were actually there, go dig up some contemporary accounts. You will find it strangely difficult to do so. And if you manage to do so – well, I am sure if what you find contradicts my account, you will let us know.

The past is always changing. Only the future is certain. The arc of history bends towards justice </sarcasm>

If what I say is untrue, it should be easy to prove that what I say is untrue.

If what I say is true, it should be entirely unsurprising that it is difficult to prove anything.

“If it does not appear, it is because access to dangerous knowledge has been restricted. This stuff used to be readily available.”

Really? The Library Police of Australia confiscated hatecrime records that you were privy to. So since have such a keen nose for research, where exactly was “this stuff readily available”? In other words, what specific libraries in Australia you had previously visited contained all of the requisite materials that [poof] disappeared?

Libraries have been burning books. Library staff are forbidden to go through the books designated for destruction and rescue the ones that have high resale value. Books are, or recently were, being destroyed in very large numbers, deemed obsolete, and replaced by new books. Many of the books destroyed have incredibly high resale value on Amazon, because copies have become extremely rare – been made extremely rare.

>Libraries have been burning books. Library staff are forbidden to go through the books designated for destruction and rescue the ones that have high resale value. Books are, or recently were, being destroyed in very large numbers, deemed obsolete, and replaced by new books. Many of the books destroyed have incredibly high resale value on Amazon, because copies have become extremely rare – been made extremely rare.

I guess that explains why, when I recently went to the library, it seemed like the selection had been quite dramatically dumbed down.

They are not specifically targeting thought crime books. I don’t know what the criteria for eradication are. Seems to be quite broad. Maybe they are just erasing all books older than a certain date, which date varies from one category of book to the next.

Now you could say “Oh, a lot of old books, the public does not like old books, we need to give them new books, we are just responding to public demand”. But the prohibition on rescuing books with high resale value suggests censorship – that they are erasing our past.

Somehow, any item I am particularly curious about, for example Virginia Library eighteenth century marriage records, just is not available on google.

I used to be able to read Munshi Abdullah’s works on Google books. They are subversive, in that they provide a contemporary report on what British colonialism and the British empire was actually like, which is substantially different from official history.

And now, for some reason, I cannot. They are not exactly banned or suppressed, but access has become difficult.

Fortunately, when I realized stuff was disappearing, I downloaded a copy, and I have on my disk drive a book that Google used to make freely available, but today, not.

If you want to read Munshi Abdullah’s account of british imperialism, if you want a first hand source on what the British empire was actually like, you will find it strangely difficult.

History is being erased.

For a while, Google reversed this, made history more available. Now they are backing off from it.

Which libraries in Australia? What specific “crime think” books have they been roasting and broiling?

And, I ask again, what specific libraries in Australia you had previously visited contained all of the requisite materials that [poof] disappeared? Offer examples.

“Library staff are forbidden to go through the books designated for destruction and rescue the ones that have high resale value.”

Who forbids them? What are actual stories–not the ones made up in your mind–by which Australian library staff have been barred from saving these books? Links would suffice.

“I don’t know what the criteria for eradication are. Seems to be quite broad.”

Exactly what I thought. More shit flung on the wall.

“They are subversive, in that they provide a contemporary report on what British colonialism and the British empire was actually like, which is substantially different from official history.”

Munshi Abdullah marveled at the the importance of knowledge. He would often illustrate how the locals, being oppressed under unscrupulous, power hungry Malay elites, led to them being deprived of education which would help them improve their lives, and thought that the British could help his people in this regard so they could govern themselves free from outside interference.

Munshi Abdullah marveled at the the importance of knowledge. He would often illustrate how the locals, being oppressed under unscrupulous, power hungry Malay elites, led to them being deprived of education which would help them improve their lives, and thought that the British could help his people in this regard so they could govern themselves free from outside interference.

This provides a perfect example of why they make it difficult for you to discover what Munshi Abdullah actually wrote.

What he wrote was that the Malay ruling elite had committed terrible sins against God and Man, and that therefore God had given them to the British.

Munshi Abdullah regarded the British as God’s punishment for the sins of the Malay ruling elite, and never imagined that ordinary Malays ever could or ever should rule themselves.

He regarded education as extremely important, but it would never have occurred to him that education could result in ordinary Malays governing themselves.

This is why they have to erase the past wholesale, rather than just particular events or ideas. They don’t want people to know that what everyone takes for granted these days, not one even imagined yesterday.

I remember a time when feminists could not even express the thought of “marital rape”. No one would have understood them.

Go back a little further, and there is a whole pile of stuff like “marital rape” – such as “Malays governing themselves”. Not only did Munshi Abdullah not say that, Munshi Abdullah would not have understood what you were talking about.

He could understand a Malay Raja ruling, or the East India Company ruling, but “Malays” ruling? What could that even mean?

Go to a big old library in the center of a big old city. Check out the chick lit. The library is old, but the chick lit is all new.

Because it is all about romance, and the relationships of men and women, and all the older chick lit would likely depict what is now called rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and domestic abuse as part of the healthy, happy, and completely normal relationships between men and women.

I can help here since I actually saw the process. My high school library simply eliminated every single book that was written before 1970. They took them all, stamped them and put them in the dumpster. I got a bunch of them because the librarians knew I loved books and I was (and am) a total nerd.

Didn’t keep alot of them (I guess I assumed they’d still be available in the future from things like Project Gutenburg), but I have a few left. I’ll give an example of what was eliminated:

Gentlemen, Scholars and Scoundrels
A Treasury of the Best of Harper’s Magazine from 1850 to Present (1959)

Includes such items as
“The Southern Case Against Desegregation” by T R Waring

Interestingly he talks about the exact same process occuring in his time
“The US Public Health Service some years ago quietly stopped identifying statistics by race”

“Though the Northern press no longer identifies criminals by race, white Southerners have reason to believe that much of the outbreak of crime and juvenile delinquency in Northern cities is due to the influx of the Negro population,”

“In Chicago three hundred policemen have been assigned for a year or more to guard a non-segregated housing project, with no bigger population than a Southern village where a single constable keeps the peace. In the County of Charleston, South Carolina- with 190,000 population, nearly half negro- the total law enforcement of combined city and county forces is 175.”

Which libraries in Australia, Jim? And what older books have been burned? If you are going to make claims, best back them up, rather than fling your normal shit on the wall and get exposed as a fraud yet one more time.

And, I ask again, what specific libraries in Australia had you previously visited that contained all of the requisite materials that [poof] disappeared? Offer examples.

“What he wrote was that the Malay ruling elite had committed terrible sins against God and Man, and that therefore God had given them to the British.”

No, what he wrote is that the education system needed reforms, and that the British model would best serve to help his people help themselves.

“Munshi Abdullah regarded the British as God’s punishment for the sins of the Malay ruling elite, and never imagined that ordinary Malays ever could or ever should rule themselves.”

No, what he wrote was that the Malay ruling elite was corrupt for keeping down their brethren knowledge-wise. One of his texts, entitled ‘Bagaimana jalan membuat kitab dengan dicap’ (How to make printed books) was a springboard for the lower classes to learn how to read and write..and to think for themselves.

“He regarded education as extremely important, but it would never have occurred to him that education could result in ordinary Malays governing themselves.”

Having worked with Christian missionaries, who talked about political liberty in Great Britain and America, of course it would have occurred to him that ordinary Malays could govern themselves.

> Which libraries in Australia, Jim? And what older books have been burned?

Check your own library. Go to a big city library near the center of the city. Library is probably pretty old, probably one or two hundred years old. Check the chick section.

What is the oldest romance book for chicks you can find?

Not very old at all – because all the older books were apt to treat what is now deemed rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and domestic abuse, as part of the normal happy friendly interaction between men and women. So the past was sent to the incinerator.

The past has been burned.

All of it.

You say they did not burn the past?

OK, where is the past? The library is a hundred years old. Where are the old romance books?

No, what he wrote was …

I have read what he wrote. You have read what someone else says that he wrote.

“Check your own library. Go to a big city library near the center of the city. Library is probably pretty old, probably one or two hundred years old. Check the chick section.”

Stop acting like a gamma. Which libraries in Australia, Jim? And what older books have been burned? If you are going to make claims, best back them up, rather than fling your normal shit on the wall and get exposed as a fraud yet one more time.

And, I ask again, what specific libraries in Australia had you previously visited that contained all of the requisite materials that [poof] disappeared? Offer examples.

“The past has been burned. All of it.”

Jim, if there are archives that have preserved old texts, all of the past has not been burned. Furthermore, you have yet to offer specific instances of who have burned these books, in what locations, and for what purposes. Rather, you make more shit, double or even triple down, and look foolish. Why do you repeatedly make an ass out of yourself?

“I have read what he wrote. You have read what someone else says that he wrote. They lie.”

No, Jim. It is in his words. Directly from him. You are wrong yet again.

Which libraries in Australia, Jim? And what older books have been burned?

All the libraries, all the older books. All burned, except for libraries that only researchers have access to. Check your own library. We are being cut off from our own past.

Check the chick section in your own public library, that being the most recent and drastic erasure of our recent past.

In the quite recent past, we had marriage and families. They don’t want people to know this. They want people to imagine that our present hell was always like this.

This is just like the chocolate ration in Orwell’s 1984. In “1984”, whenever the party lowered the chocolate ration, they announced that they were raising it, and revised the past so that the chocolate ration was lower in the past. Hence today’s chick section in your public library.

Which libraries in Australia, Jim? And what older books have been burned?

All the libraries, all the older books. All burned, except for libraries that only researchers have access to. Check your own library. We are being cut off from our own past.

Check the chick section in your own public library, that being the most recent and drastic erasure of our recent past.

In the quite recent past, we had marriage and families. They don’t want people to know this. They want people to imagine that our present hell was always like this.

This is just like the chocolate ration in Orwell’s 1984. In “1984”, whenever the party lowered the chocolate ration, they announced that they were raising it, and revised the past so that the chocolate ration was lower in the past. Hence today’s chick section in your public library.

Having redefined old type marriage and family as rape and domestic abuse, they need to erase any trace of the fact that people rather liked “rape” and “domestic abuse”.

Our past is being so thoroughly revised that they can’t even trust us with original versions of popular movies from thirty years ago: they’re having to remake them all with mixed race couples, gay marriage and heroic 7 stone women who can lift buses.

“I can help here since I actually saw the process. My high school library simply eliminated every single book that was
written before 1970.”

A decision made by the school district, which was common place.

“Includes such items as “The Southern Case Against Desegregation” by T R Waring”

Which is still available. It wasn’t burned.

“Interestingly he talks about the exact same process occuring in his time”

From a southron perspective.

“Though the Northern press no longer identifies criminals by race, white Southerners have reason to believe that much of the outbreak of crime and juvenile delinquency in Northern cities is due to the influx of the Negro population,”

Due to the influx of a poorer group of people who happened to be black. The same argument was made by nativists against the Irish and Italians, for example, when they came over as immigrants. It was their socio-economic standing. Conveniently, nativists believed it was either race or ethnicity that was the primary factor.

“All the libraries, all the older books. All burned, except for libraries that only researchers have access to. Check your own library. We are being cut off from our own past.”

Jim, all it takes is offering sources of books being burned by libraries. You should be able to muster up something; that is, unless you are shitting on yourself again. In that case, shovel it your way, not toward me.

“I have read what he wrote. You have read what someone else says that he wrote. They lie.”

No, Jim. It is in his words. Directly from him. You are wrong yet again.

Once I called the attention of a feminist that the human female seems to have been built for rape and that rape causes no organic damage to a mature woman (over 16 say) and that women during rape secrete lubricant liquids and experience excitation and frequently climax. Therefore in our society where women are on the pill and has no important physiological cost, it should not carry such draconian punishments – 20 years or life.

I never again talked about this idea. Regarding rape, people exists in the dinosaur age, silence is golden. Anyway, at my age, the subject is not topical.

The cost of rape is entirely a cost for the male who rightfully owns the woman and needs to take care of her. It is not a significant cost for women.

We need to revert to the older meaning of rape, where rape consists of dating a woman or having sex with her without the permission of the responsible male, her permission not being legally significant.

Holy shit, are you reliving your own personal stories where you think you actually pleased a woman by forcing yourself on her? Your fucked theory is riddled with falseness. Even during consensual sex, many woman can’t feel pleasure without artificial lubrication, hence the market for lubricants. I hope to god you’re old enough to never get another erection.

P.S. As you google the values of the various Roman numerals, you heathen, picture me in your mind’s eye with icy blue eyes, flowing golden hair, the fairest skin you’ve ever seen, and a jawline carved out of granite, wearing an impossibly tight leather jacket and casually leaning on my jet-black Japanese supersport. I’m not, actually, as I type this message, but I do have some pretty wicked photos of that description.

P.P.S. I’ll take over the age of XXIX for C, Alex, but I’m open to correction.

for if one of the accusations was plausibly true, he would be the poster boy instead of Haven Monahan.

It does not work this way. Bullshit can be and was chosen for wide promotion even if it’s obvious AND there’s overabundance of real stories (e.g.: “Panfilov’s Twenty-Eight Guardsmen” story).
For one, bullshit stories usually have all the promotion-worthy details and none of the inconvenient details, while real stories tend toward the opposite.

Of course, in case of OMGcollegeraep existence of the real stories is dubious. The victim studies are probably the most efficient contraceptive these places have. It’s hard to imagine a lot of boys with balls, but no patience there.

OK. Let us look at few more facts. University of Virginia was under extreme pressure from the Department of Education to find white heterosexual male college student rapists, being threatened with the likelihood of a DoE class action lawsuit for failure to identify and punish a sufficient number of white heterosexual male college students. The University interrogated large numbers of coeds under high pressure, pressuring them to report rape by white heterosexual male college student rapists. Many did so.

Thirty six coeds did so. Precisely zero disciplinary actions ensued.

Naturally, the politically correct felt that the University of Virginia was letting thirty six white heterosexual male college student rapists off the hook, so investigated the University of Virginia, and came up with … Haven Monahan.

If one of the thirty six had been half way plausible, he would have been the poster boy, not Haven Monahan.

Perhaps “like coercion” as such is an exception. But.
In general, being given an excuse absolving one of responsibility for doing something the subject would rather do anyway but “should not” works great – and often moves whole crowds.
Take mob mayhem – a common moron doesn’t quite have guts for random thievery and vandalism just so, but jumps on an excuse for it.
Conversely, IIRC Mark Twain mentioned that typical half-assed lynch mobs can be and were scattered by a single dude telling them off, because most participants have joined out of moral cowardice and would rather be somewhere else, so they are ready to slip away under any pressure.
“The anti-gun male” thing, too.
And many, many other cases.

You’re still thinking of spiritual, rational souls. Stop it. Men and women are animals. Women want to be dominated because they want a show of strength and will because they want a strong man who will own them and keep them and their children.

I think I’m starting to figure out this woman thing. Women remember past events but not past feelings. Past events are interpreted according to present feelings. So if she had sex a month ago with a man she now finds repulsive, it must have been rape. The wife of ten years of a guy I knew left him “after ten years of unhappy marriage” according to her personal ad. If she was so unhappy, why did she wait ten years to eject?

Feeling up tits and ass in the elevator is fine if you’re a sexy famous guy, but it’s a crime if you’re a disgusting old pervert. Every woman enjoys it as long as no one complains. But as soon as one or two speak up, you suddenly flip from “sexy famous guy” to “disgusting old pervert” in the mind of every woman you’ve ever touched, and your career is over.

No. Women try to get what they need now and will say anything. Men have resources and women will manipulate men as they need to. Women understand this about each other and dismissively refer to waterworks, men are programmed to stop and listen to QQing because sometimes it’s important.

I had a situation years ago where what I thought was a minor conflict with a young woman became later inflamed to absurd proportions with the help of a second woman, our mutual “friend,” who convinced the first that what I did to the first was a “grave offense.”

Women, by the fact that they lack man’s agency, tend to rely for their “rational decision-making,” for the sense of good vs bad and high-status vs low-status, on other “trusted” parties (incl popular opinion and evil, envious girlfriends) and can change the way they perceive any situation, including an innocuous comment, on a dime, post-factum of their first determination.

That’s why it’s very important to isolate women from bad influences, be it a single person or a whole type of society.

It all makes sense evolutionarily: women much more depend (than men) on their social rank, for survival. An exclusion from the group means almost certain death for the female, in the ancestral environments.

Now, going back to the main theme of this post, “Women like sexual coercion:”
Speaking about “sexy famous guy” vs”old disgusting pervert” dichotomy, I once went on a date with a woman to whom I demonstrated my high-status and had sex with her the same night I met her. I ended up with a pregnancy scare, in that I had good grounds to fear that the woman might end up getting pregnant and I, alas, only had just found out that she was a feminist and a slut (yes, oops, right after the fact, but I’ll skip the details). Seeing that she would not budge and not go with me to get the morning-after pill, I had to use, what I term, the “nuclear option:” I made up a story to her of how much of a loser I was and how much I was worried that the child might become fatherless, because our relationship with the mother would surely not work out. That did the trick. She absolutely hated the fact that she slept with, what she thought she discovered, was a loser, and I got her the pill the same night. We separated after that immediately, on her insistence. Thus, confirming that the minute you lower your status in the eyes of the woman, there is no going back.

I would love to have children of my own, I really do. In other words, naturally, I don’t like going through the aforementioned sort of adventure. But, on the other hand, I don’t want to have a feminist slut for a mother of my child. So, in a sense, I was not lying to her: I really did think that our relationship was unlikely to work out.

A much earlier example was my first girlfriend. She was a lower-class woman who came from abusive relationships, with lots of crazy stories. I treated her very nicely and made her feel good about herself. She was fun to be with. In retrospect, by, one one hand, treating her too kindly and, on the other, being too distanced when she had her manic-depressive episodes instead of beating sense into her and showing how much I care, I now realize that I ruined her. Either way, a lesson here: never be too much of a nice thing for any woman, as they will not remember it. Once she thought I was not high-status anymore (my own fault for letting it happen), it was as if nothing mattered anymore, I became an annoyance. I learned this the hard way, by getting ungratefully slapped with a restraining order (no actual threats against her were involved, believe it or not).

The little problem is that all of today’s Western young women are feminist sluts, to one extent or another. Keeping them restrained, in chains when impossible otherwise, and yes, flogged for good cause, as deemed by their owner, is the right, ultimately kind thing to do. One man cannot do it, especially if he is kind by nature. It takes a whole society to make it happen.

“Keeping them restrained, in chains when impossible otherwise, and yes, flogged for good cause, as deemed by their owner, is the right, ultimately kind thing to do.”

Of course this is your fantasy. In reality, you lack agency and the gumption to put into practice your wishes.

Furthermore, a man’s social status is assigned by those around him and he is ranked compared to all other men they know based on certain criteria, which is why it’s called a “hierarchy”. One of the key indicators of a man’s rank is the opinion of women as to his desirability. This is why gammas burn with rage when women can’t see that they’re really a secret king. They can’t admit there’s anything wrong with their behavior, it must be everyone else. So as far as your self-described “alpha” status, you are like an SJW who demands they are a special snowflake.

“Lack the balls to do that? My gf would beg me to do that if I weren’t already inclined to.”

Tough talk from you, an observably low T man. Unless you have direct video evidence by which your gf is indeed begging for you to hit her with a stick and/or locking her up in a cage, you are unequivocally lying given your perpetual shit flinging ways.

I’m not going to indulge your voyeurism with videos of my gf, but go look on tumblr for hot young fertile blond women explicitly saying they want that and posting pictures of that being done to other women.

But let’s talk about the punishment for wrongdoing angle. Pathetic cuccbois have this ss fantasy and look for stepmom porn. Hot fertile women have an alpha domination fantasy where they call the alpha daddy – I didn’t understand why my mom called my dad that and assumed it was for the same reason she called his father grandpa around us – and the alpha calls her babygirl and yells at her when she’s being bad.

True to form, my GF told her sister she knew I was the one when I yelled at her this one time.

Women want an alpha who will take care of them and theirs, but they are programmed to look for certain signals instead of words. I am a low SMV jerk and would not be able to have her if you understood this.

Whatever I say here can never be verified, but for the sake of shits and giggles, I’ll humor myself further:

1) Don’t quote my out of context. I said: ” Keeping them restrained, in chains when impossible otherwise, and yes, flogged for good cause, as deemed by their owner, is the right, ultimately kind thing to do. One man cannot do it, especially if he is kind by nature. It takes a whole society to make it happen.” Emphasis is on the last sentence.

2) The woman I was writing about was a bipolar chick in her early 30’s from previously abusive relationships. She was cute, gentle, but pretty dumb and rarely properly disciplined by her father (a violent Irish cretin). In fact, anytime I told her what to do and not to do, she would get horny (I didn’t tell her those things because I wanted to abuse, but merely out of general concern for her well-being and proper dignity). I had never known about this before, as I still was a virgin until 24 years old, but she actually *asked me* to punish her. This I did, at first hesitantly, but later with great pleasure. Yes, it is both quite pleasing and fun to slap a woman’s plump buttocks, to make them red and hear her screams. Ever tried? No? You are missing out :-)!

Women get obvious female privilege. Incompetent women get jobs for being female to make the quota. Police are far more likely to kill white men committing a crime than black men committing a crime, because they can kill law abiding white men with impunity but cannot kill vicious black criminals without big repercussions.

Instead of looking at the proportion of black men who get shot by police, try looking at the proportion of black criminals shot while committing a violent crime. Instead of looking at the average salary received by women, try looking at the competence and performance, or conspicuous absence thereof, of women in a high pay high status job.

If black men were being wrongfully killed by whites, you would have better poster boys than Trayvon Martin. If women could do men’s jobs, you would have better poster girls than Marie Curie.

If it were not for whites, blacks and amerindians would still be eating each other.

Virtue signaling about being singled out for sexual abuse is a great way to get famous while pointing to your junk and telling people how valuable it is. The feeling of being touched by an alpha with love or a sordid transaction with some guy who wants you to watch him jerk off into a potted plant is still important because you need your abuse story to sound like something to be disappointed about to attract comments of that’s terrible I’ll do better instead of bragging to attract comments of have a nice time staying single forever whore.

This is the biggest bunch of pathetic bullshit excuses I’ve ever read! Your in securities about another man sleeping with “your woman” have jack to do with rape culture. I suggest you see a counselor or pastor about your attempt to justify fucking assaulting a woman with your little dick before you post anymore of this ridiculous garbage. Truly thought it a ask a parody at first.

You haven’t been here long, have you? Do you want testable predictions to tell between our model and societies or is this just the joy of showing outrage? Because there are websites where you can do the latter.